So I'm going to ask a question here, since I'm not from those parts. Is being able to identify someone as black being racist? I'm not seeing the words uppity or how they deserved less than anyone else - simply that the black people he was around weren't filled with envy or spite.

Perhaps context is lost, but I see a guy telling a story and using common, non-derogatory terms to describe people.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Its another excuse to jump on Christians and make us sound like we're all whacko's.

"Stop attacking Christians as homophobic wackos, Strawman-Who-Is-Doing-That, despite what I just said about those beliefs coming directly from the Bible!"

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

And I'm not saying Phill is either.

"...not that anything Phil said was crazy. He had some good points, apparently."

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

Self-righteous posts aside, search your self and see what you're really upset with. Or is it the cool thing to do?

You're not being any better than the man you're slinging arrows at. Yours is just covered by the status-quo.

"After all, who are the real haters here? The man who uses his national platform to preach that homosexuality is sinful; Islam, Shintoism, and all other non-Christian belief structures are on par with Nazi-style fascism; and that black people were happier and more productive in the segregated South? Or anyone with family, friends, or even acquaintances in any of those groups who now says, 'Those views are abhorrent and I'm going to choose not to do business with that guy or his sponsors.' Eh?"

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

Do I as a Christian condone what Phill said?

Well, you seem to think it's in the Bible-

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

I only have my Bible to go by.

-so yes, since it's "all you have to go by," you evidently do condemn gay people.

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

But I don't judge anyone.

Oh. Never mind, then.

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

Hollywood has done a wonderful job of exploiting the Christian faith by putting ALL Christians in the same barrel when all they are doing is showing a fringe element of our Faith and claiming its the norm.

"Stop painting all Christians as homophobic! That's just a outlier belief voiced by those fringe Christians who read and believe in the Bible...."

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

Here is my stand on issues like this. stand-by cliché incoming......................I love the person, and hate the sin.

"...like me."

Quote from: Arclight on December 21, 2013, 03:11:23 PM

But again, that's my belief. How can I be judged on that?

Like this: your life is entirely unaffected by the existence of gay people. Whether they're holding hands and watching a movie, getting married and sharing insurance benefits, or enjoying raucous carnal relations in the privacy of their own homes, their happiness costs you literally nothing.

When you choose to denigrate their "lifestyle" as aberrant and sinful, it makes you seem petty, hateful, and small. Couching it as an article of your faith reeks of cowardice as well. The Bible prohibits lots of things, from mixed-fabric garments to shellfish to drinking alcohol in holy place -- hope you've never taken communion! -- yet you've cherry-picked one prohibition to claim it was *really* serious about because, if God said so, your bigotry magically becomes moral.

It isn't. Waving the Bible around to oppose emancipation, racial integration, anti-miscegenation, and women's liberation wasn't moral either, but it made the people raging against those basic human rights issues feel better about themselves for a while, too. Those arguments seem monstrous to us today, but who knows: maybe Jesus Christ Himself had a hearty handshake ready for all those generations who arrived at the Pearly Gates hating all the right people.

I hope not. For your sake, I mean. Otherwise, He's going to be mighty disappointed in your lifetime of not-slave trading.

Identifying someone as black isn't the issue. The issue is his wave-of-the-hand dismissal of the challenges African-Americans faced because he "didn't see them".

I'll bet that those who lived through the pre-Civil Rights era would strongly disagree about the lack of mistreatment. Just IMO, of course.

But is that racist or just ignorance? And by ignorance I'm not referring to a slanderous tone, but simply that someone there of his class wouldn't see the disparity ie they were poor and so was he?

It doesn't sound like he's speaking down to "the blacks" and that while he certainly is a bit of an overzealous Christian, his statements don't strike me as hate-mongering. Judgemental, sure. Theology seems to brings out the worst in people. Well, that and console launches.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Identifying someone as black isn't the issue. The issue is his wave-of-the-hand dismissal of the challenges African-Americans faced because he "didn't see them".

I'll bet that those who lived through the pre-Civil Rights era would strongly disagree about the lack of mistreatment. Just IMO, of course.

I don't see where his saying he didn't witness it is equal to saying it didn't exist. If I say I never saw any Jews persecuted mean I am dismissing what they have been subjected to. If I say I have never personally seen any gays beaten up or ridiculed am I dismissing the evidence that they have. Sounds like people are attaching meaning to his words that isn't there.

Perhaps it would be preferential for him to dawn the proverbial Hillary negro accent and profess a bunch of lies to tell people what they would like to hear like he was running for office?

Identifying someone as black isn't the issue. The issue is his wave-of-the-hand dismissal of the challenges African-Americans faced because he "didn't see them".

I'll bet that those who lived through the pre-Civil Rights era would strongly disagree about the lack of mistreatment. Just IMO, of course.

My grandfather lived through it and he told me he never witnessed anyone mistreating any black people. I am quite sure he was being truthful. was he a liar, racist, or maybe just maybe he didn't witness any. That is a stretch from saying it didn't happen and IMHO in no way minishes the events of mistreatment that DID happen.

My grandfather lived through it and he told me he never witnessed anyone mistreating any black people. I am quite sure he was being truthful. was he a liar, racist, or maybe just maybe he didn't witness any. That is a stretch from saying it didn't happen and IMHO in no way minishes the events of mistreatment that DID happen.

In the segregationist South, black people were frequently barred from commercial establishments and were subject to all manner of arbitrary restrictions in places they were allowed to enter. "Coloreds" were only allowed to drink from that water fountain, sit in those seats, attend that school, apply for that job or earn that fraction of the money a white person would get for the same work. Every facet of those communities were engineered to ostracize black citizens and emphasize their second-class status.

I consider that mistreatment, and that's before we get to the parts with the fire hoses, attack dogs, and public lynchings. Where, specifically, was your grandfather when he "lived through it" and can't recall anything black folks might have found upsetting?

He thinks guys should be with girls, and he didn't see the racism where he was.

These are pretty defensible statements.

I wish I had the full context of the quote to see what it was in response to. He seems to be inferring (especially when you take into account the last part about entitlements turning African Americans "ungodly") that everything was just fine prior to the civil rights movement and that he didn't see any reason for change. I mean, everyone was so happy, right? Never mind the social implications at that time of a black person publicly expressing their frustrations...

My grandfather lived through it and he told me he never witnessed anyone mistreating any black people. I am quite sure he was being truthful. was he a liar, racist, or maybe just maybe he didn't witness any. That is a stretch from saying it didn't happen and IMHO in no way minishes the events of mistreatment that DID happen.

In the segregationist South, black people were frequently barred from commercial establishments and were subject to all manner of arbitrary restrictions in places they were allowed to enter. "Coloreds" were only allowed to drink from that water fountain, sit in those seats, attend that school, apply for that job or earn that fraction of the money a white person would get for the same work. Every facet of those communities were engineered to ostracize black citizens and emphasize their second-class status.

I consider that mistreatment, and that's before we get to the parts with the fire hoses, attack dogs, and public lynchings. Where, specifically, was your grandfather when he "lived through it" and can't recall anything black folks might have found upsetting?

-Autistic Angel

Farming his land in central Indiana. Of course he was probably lucky if he saw more than a dozen people a month.

You have to remember how much area was rural back then and not everywhere was filled with negro hating, cross burning former slave owners. A lot of those farmers and poor uneducated white folk had ancestors that fought for the union in the Civil War and were just as repulsed by the actions and opinions of the numerous racists that existed at the time.

Also I didn't say he didn't recall it I said he never SAW it, which is exactly what Phil said. Big difference.

My grandfather lived through it and he told me he never witnessed anyone mistreating any black people. I am quite sure he was being truthful. was he a liar, racist, or maybe just maybe he didn't witness any. That is a stretch from saying it didn't happen and IMHO in no way minishes the events of mistreatment that DID happen.

In the segregationist South, black people were frequently barred from commercial establishments and were subject to all manner of arbitrary restrictions in places they were allowed to enter. "Coloreds" were only allowed to drink from that water fountain, sit in those seats, attend that school, apply for that job or earn that fraction of the money a white person would get for the same work. Every facet of those communities were engineered to ostracize black citizens and emphasize their second-class status.

I consider that mistreatment, and that's before we get to the parts with the fire hoses, attack dogs, and public lynchings. Where, specifically, was your grandfather when he "lived through it" and can't recall anything black folks might have found upsetting?

-Autistic Angel

Farming his land in central Indiana. Of course he was probably lucky if he saw more than a dozen people a month.

You have to remember how much area was rural back then and not everywhere was filled with negro hating, cross burning former slave owners. A lot of those farmers and poor uneducated white folk had ancestors that fought for the union in the Civil War and were just as repulsed by the actions and opinions of the numerous racists that existed at the time.

Then my answer to your original question is that I do not believe your grandfather is a liar, it sounds entirely plausible that he never a direct eyewitness to the mistreatment of a black person, and that there is insufficient information to say whether or not he is racist. My default answer would usually be, "Of course not!" but if there's one thing I'm learning from this whole Duck Dynasty fiasco, it's that there remains a surprising percentage of good old-fashioned hate mongers anxious to rally behind a new spokesman.

Ask your grandfather if he agrees with Phil Robertson that black people were happier, more productive, and more Godly during the Jim Crow era of the deep South. If that becomes a springboard for stories about the glorious summer he spent traveling down to Alabama just to volunteer for the George Wallace campaign, you'll have your answer.

Quote from: Gratch on December 22, 2013, 05:49:11 AM

I wish I had the full context of the quote to see what it was in response to. He seems to be inferring (especially when you take into account the last part about entitlements turning African Americans "ungodly") that everything was just fine prior to the civil rights movement and that he didn't see any reason for change. I mean, everyone was so happy, right? Never mind the social implications at that time of a black person publicly expressing their frustrations...

His statement strikes me as stunningly ignorant, at best. YMMV.

I agree, assuming those statements were not in response to questions like, "You grew up in pre-welfare, pre-entitlement Louisiana -- did you ever see employed black people who were Godly and not, at that specific instant, singing the Blues?"

Otherwise, Robertson's comments draw a clear line between the Segregationist Era when blacks were happy, holy, and hard-working, and the modern "Entitlement Era" when, by implied contrast, everything has changed for the worse. He wasn't just reminiscing about generic "good old days" -- his nostalgia was specifically focused on a socio-economic environment in which black people were relentlessly persecuted, concluding that everyone was better off.

We all have gold-flecked stories about fun times growing up. It's just that most of us would never imagine going out our way to frame them with, "Yeah, back in the day, those gays / blacks / Asians / Jews sure knew their place...."

I don't care what anyone(yeah, you too Autistic Demon) : says about right or wrong. Sometimes the Truth is brutal and its a knife that cuts both ways. Right now you rock throwers, stand up if you have never sinned, said anything inappropriate, or other wise.................Yeah, just like in the day of Jesus, the judge's all dropped their stones and walked away.If you're gonna throw rocks, you better not live in a glass house.

In your case's, two wrongs don't make a right. Think outside the box, not being led by your nose due to the status quo.What a bunch of finger wagging Pharisee's.

All the best with your perfect little lives. One day when I grow up I want to be just like you..............oh wait, been there done that.

What a man or woman of faith believes and what they hold dear to their believes is another thing not up for ridicule. But of course the troops of the double standard infantry would disagree.

I don't care what anyone(yeah, you too Autistic Demon) : says about right or wrong. Sometimes the Truth is brutal and its a knife that cuts both ways. Right now you rock throwers, stand up if you have never sinned, said anything inappropriate, or other wise.................Yeah, just like in the day of Jesus, the judge's all dropped their stones and walked away.If you're gonna throw rocks, you better not live in a glass house.

In your case's, two wrongs don't make a right. Think outside the box, not being led by your nose due to the status quo.What a bunch of finger wagging Pharisee's.

All the best with your perfect little lives. One day when I grow up I want to be just like you..............oh wait, been there done that.

What a man or woman of faith believes and what they hold dear to their believes is another thing not up for ridicule. But of course the troops of the double standard infantry would disagree.

If "thinking outside the box" means agreeing and endorsing bigoted viewpoints because a holy book says so, then I'll gladly continue to be one of the sheep, thank you very much. Baaaaaa.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

Just your third post here and you are already winning threads? Welcome to the site Mormech!

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

Are you going to condemn the Quran and Muhammad while you are at it?

And straw men! Let's condemn straw men as well!

So the Bible is a bigoted homophobic book but the Quran is not?

It is only a strawman if they are not the same on this point. I think you will find they are identical in their feelings on homosexuality. To call one bigoted and homophobic and not the other is disingenuous.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

Are you going to condemn the Quran and Muhammad while you are at it?

And straw men! Let's condemn straw men as well!

So the Bible is a bigoted homophobic book but the Quran is not?

It is only a strawman if they are not the same on this point. I think you will find they are identical in their feelings on homosexuality. To call one bigoted and homophobic and not the other is disingenuous.

Missing in the controversy over A&E’s handling of its golden goose—or duck, rather—is the fact that the real conflict here is not between Robertson and A&E; it is between gay activists and a solid majority of Christians who believe homosexual acts are wrong. As indicated above, Robertson’s views are hardly anomalous. Christians may disagree on the details, but the Bible strongly condemns homosexuality in both the Old and New Testaments; the marriage model of one man and one woman is first given by God in Genesis 2 and reiterated by Jesus in Matthew 19; and in Romans 1 the Apostle Paul denounces homosexuality as a hallmark of a degenerate culture. The point here isn’t that you have to believe any of this, but many Christians do believe it and feel morally bound to believe it.

Instead of acknowledging this tension, however, A&E, GLAAD, and their supporters have responded with disingenuous expressions of shock and horror. And it matters that it's disingenuous, because if they actually acknowledged that there is a genuine conflict between orthodox Christianity and homosexual sex (along with several forms of heterosexual sex) they would have to confront head-on the fact that calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable, and that’s not a very politically correct thing to do.

...

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

We stand at a crossroads. The country must decide. Is the endgame here to be that orthodox Christians will henceforth have no voice within their own culture? If so, does this mean we have become a nation of bullies, forcing conformity while calling it tolerance?

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

A&E did a quick cost-benefit analysis and concluded that publicly distancing themselves from Robertson was less costly than catering to the ever-shrinking percentage of people who agree with him. That's not zero-tolerance political correctness -- it's capitalism.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

We stand at a crossroads. The country must decide. Is the endgame here to be that orthodox Christians will henceforth have no voice within their own culture? If so, does this mean we have become a nation of bullies, forcing conformity while calling it tolerance?

They do realize that it's possible to disagree with something without telling the participants that they are all evil and are going to hell, right?

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

We stand at a crossroads. The country must decide. Is the endgame here to be that orthodox Christians will henceforth have no voice within their own culture? If so, does this mean we have become a nation of bullies, forcing conformity while calling it tolerance?

They do realize that it's possible to disagree with something without telling the participants that they are all evil and are going to hell, right?

I've been keeping up with the ideas in this thread (as it is an interesting take on the religious turmoil that is happening in all places around the world). This happens to be in a more civilized location, and no lives have been lost, save that of a few horny ducks.

If you don't believe in the faith, why would you care about where they believe you're going to end up (according to them)?

If you are both gay and Christian, you have your own inner turmoil. I believe that is how we ended up with splinter factions. Perhaps starting one of your own where this God person doesn't condemn homosexuality?

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

And they brought an adulteress to Jesus while He was teaching near the Synagogue. The Pharisee's, who were the Religious leaders of the day sought to trick Jesus. When they asked Jesus what should be done with the adultress they knew they had Him. If He said stone them as in what the law says, then His whole message of grace and mercy could be challenged. And if He said she has committed no sin, then they would accuse Him of breaking their Law.

Jesus, being Jesus, gave the only perfect answer to the trickery of the Pharisees. He stood with the adultress and looked around at all the hypocritical Pharisees and said: "He who has no sin, may throw the first stone". Perfect.He kept the law by saying, go ahead and stone her, just as long as the ones throwing stones are perfect. And He gave her grace and mercy by letting her go her way with hope for change.

The Pharisees, and they are still around today, always had the people live up to some un-attainable standard, while themselves led a debauched sinful life.

Did the girl sin? Yep, according to the law of the day she had. But Jesus(true Christianity)didn't judge but helpfully pointed the girl toward home.

Does the Judeo-Christian Bible talk about such things as Homosexuality? Yes it does. Does it say its wrong for people of the same sex to lay with each other? Yes it does.But what the Bible doesn't say is to judge and condemn them. Just like adultery its wrong, but you don't judge the breaker of the law, you love them, and in that love you allow Jesus to do His thing with them. Which is to try and show them that they are loved and wanted like any other person who might have done wrong.

Is insensitivity at risk of running rampant with some believers? Sure. They are believers, not perfect. But for some reason the non-Christian majority seems to think you have to be perfect to be a Christian, if that were the case, I wouldn't be one either.Its not Christianity that's on trial here, its Phil saying something that can be construed as insensitive. But it doesn't make Phil bad either.

Some things are just not explainable with our limited words. But when I woke up to the realization that Jesus was who He said He was, my whole life and World changed. A complete 180 degree switch-a-roo

One thing is for sure. We are all going to cross over the river one day. And all shall be answered.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

A&E did a quick cost-benefit analysis and concluded that publicly distancing themselves from Robertson was less costly than catering to the ever-shrinking percentage of people who agree with him. That's not zero-tolerance political correctness -- it's capitalism.

-Autistic Angel

money money money..... monEY!!!!

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

Are you going to condemn the Quran and Muhammad while you are at it?

And straw men! Let's condemn straw men as well!

So the Bible is a bigoted homophobic book but the Quran is not?

It is only a strawman if they are not the same on this point. I think you will find they are identical in their feelings on homosexuality. To call one bigoted and homophobic and not the other is disingenuous.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

A&E did a quick cost-benefit analysis and concluded that publicly distancing themselves from Robertson was less costly than catering to the ever-shrinking percentage of people who agree with him. That's not zero-tolerance political correctness -- it's capitalism.

-Autistic Angel

They need to find a better bean counter for that cost/benefit analysis. They seem to have forgotten that capitalism is about making more money not less.

This has nothing to do with belittling anyones religion and everything to do about not being tolerant of bigotry and hate. Robertson happened to cloak his bigotry in in the Bible, hence why its even brought into play.

The reason there's so much confusion here is because his bigotry is mirrored by bigotry in the Bible. I don't think there's any denying that the Bible is a bigoted, homophobic book in its own right. So, when attacking his bigotry, he can claim that the Bible is being attacked, despite the fact that his elaborations are even worse than what the Bible said.

Both Phil AND the Bible should be getting condemned by society here, not just one or the other.

Are you going to condemn the Quran and Muhammad while you are at it?

And straw men! Let's condemn straw men as well!

So the Bible is a bigoted homophobic book but the Quran is not?

It is only a strawman if they are not the same on this point. I think you will find they are identical in their feelings on homosexuality. To call one bigoted and homophobic and not the other is disingenuous.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

A&E did a quick cost-benefit analysis and concluded that publicly distancing themselves from Robertson was less costly than catering to the ever-shrinking percentage of people who agree with him. That's not zero-tolerance political correctness -- it's capitalism.

-Autistic Angel

So losing the show over this will somehow make them more money? Interesting concept you have there.

I am REALLY, REALLY trying to stretch my brain to figure out where the hypocrisy is you speak of in this thread. The only thing I can come up with is that you must think that Mormech is Islamic.

Yeah, I had no idea where his response came from, but I guess that would make sense. I'm an atheist, for the record, and I didn't mention the Quran because Islam isn't really part of the Duck Dynasty world.

Tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance, and acceptance is not the same thing as an endorsement. The message A&E’s decision sends is that there is zero tolerance on television for Christians who are conscientious objectors to homosexuality. More than that, it implicitly suggests that the campaign for tolerance has advanced to a campaign to pressure 45 percent of Americans to recant their beliefs and endorse a lifestyle to which they are opposed, conscience be damned.

A&E did a quick cost-benefit analysis and concluded that publicly distancing themselves from Robertson was less costly than catering to the ever-shrinking percentage of people who agree with him. That's not zero-tolerance political correctness -- it's capitalism.

-Autistic Angel

They need to find a better bean counter for that cost/benefit analysis. They seem to have forgotten that capitalism is about making more money not less.

You are confusing ratings with profitability. Duck Dynasty could pull in fifty million viewers per episode and never make a dime if its only sponsors are Pray the Gay Away camps and Neo-Confederate separatists. It also isn't the only show on the network: A&E is projecting the costs of a sponsor boycott on their entire lineup.

So instead, A&E has calculated a way to minimize damage to their public image ("suspending Phil Robertson until further notice") without actually doing anything (the next season has already been filmed and is prepping for air), all while public interest in the show reaches record highs. Anyone here know what kind of numbers that Duck Dynasty marathon pulled in this weekend? I'm betting they were pretty good for a Sunday afternoon.

I know Eco-Logic started this thread by advancing the fantasy that a group of downtrodden, hardworking multimillionaires is being viciously persecuted by a spineless TV network and a few mean letters from minority advocacy bullies, but the fact is that Phil's "suspension" will end fifteen minutes after anything else happens in the world and 95% of the population will go back to not knowing what Duck Dynasty even is. The rest will linger long enough to watch the new season, ratings will spike, and all those poor cast members will get huge bonuses to sign up for more.

In the meantime, the part that I find *actually* interesting about this affair is that otherwise disinterested parties -- people ranging from Eco-Logic and Arclight to Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and GOP congressional candidate Ian Bayne are voluntarily hitching their wagons to Phil Robertson's star.

I would have thought that a particularly bigoted person who wanted to run for office in modern day America would want to keep his or her prejudices quiet on the grounds that denigrating minorities for no apparent reason would be idiotically self-destructive. But then, I do have a tendency to overestimate the Republican party.

One thing is for sure. We are all going to cross over the river one day. And all shall be answered.

I wish I could believe that there's a Big Reveal when we die. That's something a lot of people believe in without even realizing it -- even atheists think, on some level, that we'll get an "Aha! I knew it!" moment. It is most likely that we simply wink out without knowing anything. And even if we do cross into another plane, I suspect that we are just as lost and clueless there as we are here. The Big Reveal would be a great thing to be sure of.